Also, keep in mind that Geode Native is not in its own repo at https://github.com/apache/geode-native.
-Jake On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:00 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > No. The NC probably won't make a Geode release until later. There are > still many things that have to be changed to comply with ASF release rules. > > -Jake > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:05 AM Gal Palmery <gal.palm...@amdocs.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > Is this latest sw grant planned to be a part of the new release that is > now in discussion ? > > Thanks, > Gal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ernest Burghardt [mailto:eburgha...@pivotal.io] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 17:18 > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: C++ client change history > > I don't believe so, best bet is to just treat this latest sw grant as > where the community will start from on geode-native. > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Avital Amity <avital.am...@amdocs.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks Ernie, > > > > Is there a place I can find the defect list/feature list between the > > first dump and the latest one? > > > > Thanks > > Avital > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ernest Burghardt [mailto:eburgha...@pivotal.io] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:02 PM > > To: dev@geode.apache.org > > Subject: Re: C++ client change history > > > > Avital, > > "first dump" == first grant of native client code, we advise you to > > ignoring the initial grant and begin from the current offering. > > > > Best, > > Ernie > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > It's sent by all gemfire servers up to but not including 9.0. The > > > client was never using the value it was reading. It doesn't bother > > reading it now. > > > It works with servers that do send the value and those that don't. > > > > > > You should really ignore the first dump and not try to consider > > > resolving diffs between the two. > > > > > > -Jake > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:51 PM Avital Amity > > > <avital.am...@amdocs.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jacob, > > > > > > > > Does the deprecated long in GEODE server 1.0 still exist in GF > server? > > > > In what version was it removed from the server > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Avital > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jacob Barrett [mailto:jbarr...@pivotal.io] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM > > > > To: dev@geode.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: C++ client change history > > > > > > > > The change happened in a commercial release between grants. The > > > > ping case had a deprecated long read that was not compatible with > > > > the server Geode 1.0. After removing the read the code path was > > > > merged with the default as there was no diff. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:06 AM Michael William Dodge < > > > mdo...@pivotal.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure exactly what happened as my git fu isn't that great > > > > > but could it be as part of commit > > > > > 4fa64db926f51d4b12d6e4040c703cc69a9832fe? In that commit I see a > > > > > block under case TcrMessage::PING: being removed so that > > > > > execution falls through to default: but I'm unsure that I've > > > > > pieced the output from git diff together properly so that may > > > > > not be a change that happened in > > > > TcrMessage::handleByteArrayResponse. > > > > > > > > > > Sarge > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 Feb, 2017, at 09:25, Avital Amity > > > > > > <avital.am...@amdocs.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to track the history of TcrMessage.cpp but I can > > > > > > find it only > > > > > in the new client release where it moved under cppcache/src > > > > > > In particular I'm searching for the change where in function > > > > > TcrMessage::handleByteArrayResponse > > > > > > Where the case of PING message was merged with the case of the > > > > > > default > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Avital > > > > > > This message and the information contained herein is > > > > > > proprietary and > > > > > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > > > > > > > > > > > you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary > > > > and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > > > > > > > you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp > > > > > > > > > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and > > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > > > you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp > > > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp > >
